Some time ago, there was a fairly complete and partly participatory site on French species. the site indicated, for each sheet, the predator/prey relationship with the other species.
Unfortunately, the site in question no longer exists.
do you know of another site that works on the same principle?
I have read the related topic and, indeed, this possible possibility seems interesting to me. Do you know if it is still relevant?
i’m not sure what you mean. relevant is subjective and depends on your own perspective. the 2 things mentioned in that post that i referenced are (1) a way to see interactions set up in iNat and (2) the GloBi site, which is an aggregator of interactions data from many systems.
my question is to know if the idea of adding the information in question in the data of Inaturalist is still relevant.
when you add an interaction as an observation field in iNat, you are able to to see that interaction, along with others contributed by the community, in iNat using the method mentioned in the post. according the same post, a more robust handling of interactions is something that staff are interested in but is probably not something that will get done soon given many priorities and limited resources.
I add those observations to the project who eats whom: (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?project_id=who-eats-whom)
Would that be part of a relevant answer?
And this is the link to globi: https://www.globalbioticinteractions.org
BTW: I am wondering, if the interactions in who eats whom are used bei globi. As far as my understanding goes, they are not, but could be added.
Other iNat interactions are already used by globi.
Thanks for the second link, that’s exactly what I was looking for.
iNat data makes it to GloBI based on specific observation fields tied to taxa. for example, this observation (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/14212352) makes it to GloBI because it is a butterfly with the “eating” field tied to a particular plant. however, this observation (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/144339674) has not made it to GloBI because, even though it is tied to your project and has a “url” field that references another observation, it lacks an observation field that ties it to another taxon.
As I said, the site is interesting but some species are not there. Is there an explanation?
So if there would be an interaction field saying “eating” instead of the fiel “eater” the observation would be qualified for GloBI, right?
you need to use an observation field which can be recognized as some sort of interaction and whose value is stored as a taxon (id). the “eating” field used in the observation noted above fits these criteria, but so do other observation fields. for example, this observation (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/143238720) has been picked up by GloBI (https://www.globalbioticinteractions.org/?accordingTo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.inaturalist.org%2Fobservations%2F143238720&interactionType=interactsWith), and it is using both an “eaten by” and an “interaction->preyed upon by” field. (GloBI picks up both fields and also creates the inverse interaction for each within GloBI (ex. bird eats fish, bird preys upon fish).
Thx. I got the point. The reference must be a taxon, not another obs. I like the idea to link two observations because I can wait for RG for both partners. But that is a different approach than what GloBI does. I will think about doing both.
OK. If we did not put one of these fields, the species does not appear in GloBI?
Another question : are the field taxa recognized as they are entered (like a new observation)?